Utah asks Supreme Court to order federal government to dispose of 18.5 million acres of unappropriated land

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the federal government’s practice of retaining unappropriated land inside the state and to order the United States to begin disposing of those lands, state Solicitor General Stan Purser said in an interview on the podcast Legally Speaking.

Purser said the state’s complaint, filed Aug. 20 and docketed by the Supreme Court Aug. 23, challenges federal retention of roughly 18.5 million acres of unappropriated land — territory he described as about 34% of the state and comparable in area to West Virginia. "The federal government controls roughly 69% of the land in Utah," Purser said, and "half of that is national parks, monuments, forest, military bases, tribal land" which the state is not challenging.

The suit presents a constitutional argument rooted in the Tenth Amendment and the notion that the federal government has only enumerated powers. "Our position in this lawsuit is there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government just to sit on unappropriated land," Purser said. He cited the property clause and enclave clause as limited exceptions but said the federal policy of indefinite retention is inconsistent with constitutional limits.

The state is seeking a declaration that the federal statutory policy permitting retention of these lands is unconstitutional and an order directing the United States to "start disposing of these unappropriated lands," Purser said. He told the host, Richard Piatt, that practical impacts of federal retention include limits on Utah’s ability to tax those lands, make infrastructure improvements, improve roads, or use eminent domain — all matters Purser framed as affecting Utah sovereignty.

Purser described recent Bureau of Land Management actions as part of the backdrop to the filing, saying recent BLM travel-management plans have closed or restricted access to some roads and that the agency has considered leasing land in ways that could limit public access. He also pointed to long-running disputes over so-called RS 2477 roads as evidence of operational conflicts between federal land management and local access needs.

Purser told listeners the state’s claim is consistent with the Utah Enabling Act’s expectation that the federal government would dispose of lands and that Utah would share in proceeds, arguing the Enabling Act was never intended to allow the federal government to retain large swaths of land indefinitely. "We're just saying the federal government can't just sit on it for 130 years now," he said.

The filing was made directly to the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction, which is permitted when a state sues the federal government. Purser summarized the near-term procedural timeline: the federal government has 60 days after docketing to file a response (and may request an extension); the state would have an opportunity to reply; and the Court will then decide whether to retain and resolve the case. "We anticipate that the Supreme Court could make a decision later this fall or by the end of the year or maybe sometime in January," Purser said; if the Court keeps the case and schedules briefing and argument during its term, a decision could arrive by the following June.

The state has posted a public map at standforourland.utah.gov showing federal lands in Utah and other Western states, which Purser said helps give perspective to the scale of federal holdings in the region. He and the host noted other Western states, including Nevada, have even larger shares of federally owned land and are likely to watch the case.

The lawsuit explicitly excludes national parks, monuments, national forests, military installations and tribal lands. The immediate legal question is narrow, Purser said: whether Congress or federal policy may indefinitely retain unappropriated lands inside a state without an enumerated constitutional purpose. The federal government will have the opportunity to respond in the coming weeks; no judicial determination has been made and the ultimate outcome is pending.

Purser and the host ended the interview with thanks; no hearing date or further procedural orders were announced on the program.